|
Bill's
Brain |
|
|
Bill's
Brain |
|
| Bill's Blog 2005 |
The Holidays Are Upon Us Have yourself a happy holiday! November 2005 Iraqi Leaders Call for Withdrawal
Timetable The Iraqi representatives went even further, taking a jab at the Bush administration by asserting that “resistance is a legitimate right for all people” and acknowledging that there’s a difference between insurgents who are fighting to drive foreign forces out of the country and terrorists who indiscriminately attack civilians. Ouch. I can’t say I blame the Iraqis for feeling the way they do. Think about it, how would you feel if some other country decided to use your country as the battlefield for their war? That’s how Bush has portrayed the ongoing Iraq conflict. He has repeatedly called Iraq the central front in his war on terror and said that he’s fighting terrorists over there so he doesn’t have to fight them here, in the US. Imagine how that sounds to the people who live “over there.” It sounds like an arrogant leader has decided to fight his war on their land, destroying much of their country, ruining their economy and infrastructure, and killing many of their family members and friends in the process. I can understand why many Iraqis would tell Bush to get out of their country and go fight his war somewhere else. And don’t get me started on that nonsensical argument about “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” That makes sense only if you assume that “the terrorists” can only fight in one place at a time, an assumption which has been repeatedly shown to be false by the many significant terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world since the Iraq war began. And Bush making illogical statements which so obviously underestimate the capabilities of our enemies is supposed to make us safer … how? This whole withdrawal timetable situation will serve as yet another test of George Bush’s honesty and integrity. When the new Iraqi government was first formed Bush said that the new government was sovereign, the Iraqis were in charge, and American troops were in Iraq at their request. On several occasions he made a point of stressing that US troops were in Iraq because the Iraqi government wanted them there, that it was their decision. The question now is, when Bush said those things was he telling the truth or was he just BS-ing in an effort to divert blame for the continued occupation fiasco and shift responsibility for the ongoing mess from himself to the new Iraqi government? The withdrawal situation will also provide further insight into the Bush administration’s real Middle Eastern agenda. Was the Iraq invasion really about Saddam Hussein and WMDs as they claimed, or was it about global domination and conquest of strategic resources (oil), an agenda the neocons in his administration advocated for years before Bush seized power in 2000? Bush’s response to the Iraqi request for a withdrawal timetable will help to answer these questions for us. As noted, Bush has adamantly opposed a withdrawal timetable and said flatly that there will not be one. But now the Iraqi government has requested one and said that US-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of 2006. If the invasion of Iraq really was all about Saddam Hussein, WMDs, and liberating the Iraqi people as Bush has said, and if Bush really meant what he said about Iraq being sovereign and US troops being there at the request of the Iraqi government, then he will drop his opposition to a withdrawal timetable and agree to their request to develop a timeline for getting our troops out of their country. If Bush doesn’t agree to the Iraqi’s request it will be further evidence that the Bush administration is more interested in controlling major Middle Eastern oil reserves and establishing a stronger military presence in the area than they are in giving the Iraqi people their sovereignty and right to self-determination. It will also reveal that once again Bush has lied to us, he doesn’t really regard Iraq as sovereign, and US troops aren’t in Iraq because the Iraqi government wants them there, they’re in Iraq because George W. Bush and his neocon cohorts want them there. Bush and Cheney Push Pro-Torture Agenda For those of you who live in the US of A, doesn’t this just make you so proud to be an American right now? Don’t you feel good knowing that the leaders of our once-great nation want to use the same kinds of cruel and inhumane techniques as dictators like Saddam Hussein? Doesn’t it make you happy to know that while our sons and daughters are fighting and dying to supposedly eliminate regimes that use torture, their commander in chief is arguing for the right to torture people? As John McCain said, “This means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment.” How can anyone claim that George W. Bush truly “supports our troops” when he’s actively fighting for the very evils that he sent our troops to fight against? That’s not support, that’s betrayal. What prompted Bush and Cheney to come out in support of torture was an amendment that John McCain introduced in the Senate which would ban the “cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment” of prisoners. The ban was attached to a military spending bill and George “Waterboard” Bush threatened to veto the bill if it included the amendment. According to the New York Times “The White House has also threatened a veto if any bill arrives on President Bush’s desk with the provision.” Keep in mind that to date president George “Thumbscrews” Bush hasn’t yet vetoed a single bill, for any reason. Apparently the right to torture people is the only thing that’s so important to him that he would use his veto power to preserve it. And, after all of Bush’s platitudes about “supporting the troops” he’s threatening to veto a military spending bill, which would take much-needed money away from those same troops, all in the name of trying to give himself the ability to be cruel and inhumane whenever he pleases. Bush’s actions are morally reprehensible and thoroughly disgusting. According to news reports Dick Cheney has been especially active in pushing the administration’s pro-torture position, including pressuring members of Congress not to investigate CIA interrogation practices and actively lobbying McCain to exempt the CIA from the proposed torture ban. The Washington Post reported “Over the past year, Vice President Dick Cheney has waged an intense and largely unpublicized campaign to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects.” The Post also stated that Cheney made “an impassioned plea” to Republican senators to reject McCain’s amendment, and he “pushed hard to have the amendment defeated.” The Los Angeles Times also reported that “White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Vice President Dick Cheney was representing the views of President Bush in lobbying lawmakers to exempt the CIA from legislation that would ban the inhumane treatment of suspected terrorists and other detainees.” They went on to say that “McClellan said existing laws were adequate to prevent torture of the prisoners, including those who are held at what are reported to be secret CIA-operated facilities in Eastern Europe.” So the White House believes existing laws are adequate, huh? I guess that all depends on how you define “adequate.” If you consider the disgusting pictures and stories of abuse that have come out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay it sure doesn’t look like existing laws are adequate. Those laws did a heck of a job of preventing all that abuse, didn’t they? I guess we have to keep in mind that this is coming from an administration that believes it’s “adequate” to put a former horse show manager in charge of FEMA and leave thousands of people to suffer and drown in the wake of a major hurricane. The former FEMA head was apparently adequate in their opinion too, Bush even said he was doing “a heck of a job.” When your definition of “adequate” includes total incompetence and complete ineffectiveness, then sure, existing laws are certainly adequate. And a cup of water is adequate for fighting a raging forest fire too. Once again Bush has had the gall (and the dishonesty) to say one thing when the TV cameras are on him, proclaiming that “we don’t torture”, and then he does the opposite when the cameras are gone, he fights for the right to torture. Given Bush and Cheney’s recent efforts to defeat McCain’s torture ban there is now no doubt, no uncertainty, and no ambiguity about their true position. They support the use of torture, and if you support them then you support torture too. If you’re an American and you support Bush you should be ashamed of yourself. As I watch the actions of this corrupt regime I have but one source of solace. Well, two actually. The first is that we only have three more years of King George to endure. The second is that if there is a God, and if there is a judgment of each individual upon death as many Christians believe, then Bush will be spending eternity in a place where he won’t need a jacket. He and Dick might even get to enjoy some of that torture that they love so much. The Iraq Deception
- How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of Curveball Five senior German intelligence officials who worked with Curveball for six years have come forward and described how they warned the Bush administration that Curveball was unreliable and his information was likely untrue. They have also noted that Bush exaggerated and mischaracterized the information provided by Curveball in an effort to overstate the threat from Saddam Hussein and push for the invasion of Iraq. (I’m shocked to hear that! Shocked I tell you!!!) Here are some excerpts from the LA Times article: The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account. At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball's account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion. There is much, much more detail in the article so give it a read at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,2053900,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines. Right to a trial or
no right to a trial? - More Bush Hypocrisy The Bush administration was in all-too-typical form recently when the great Mis-Leaders Bush and Cheney commented on the resignation of Cheney’s former chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter – New American Century Neocon” Libby. After spending the past couple years fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for the ability to strip US citizens of their legal rights, ship them to an offshore island, hold them forever with no charges, no right to a trial, no right to legal representation, no right to even know why they are being held, no right to see the evidence against them and no right to respond to it, Bush actually had the gall to say, and I quote: “In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial.” Go ahead and pause for a minute and take deep breaths until your brain stops spinning. You may want to sit down until the intense cognitive dissonance clears. Yes, it was THAT George W. Bush who actually said that. I’m not making it up. I don’t know what kind of toothpaste Bush uses but it must be mighty powerful to get rid of the stench of the BS that comes out of his mouth. (There’s a Saturday Night Live, or maybe Mad TV, skit in there somewhere. “Brush with new Stench-Away!”) The complete contradiction between the administration’s actions with respect to detainee rights and executive power and Bush’s comments concerning the charges against Lewis Libby is yet another example of how Bush says one thing when the cameras are on him and the media is taking notes, and then does the opposite when it comes to policy decisions and his “behind the scenes” agenda. It all depends on what suits his needs at the moment, he’ll say whatever is best for protecting his administration and his image, even if it’s completely contradicted by the facts and his own well-documented actions. Cheney added his own BS to the pile with this equally absurd line: “In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts.” Right, Dick. Let’s check in on the Bush administration’s adherence to their alleged belief that everyone is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial by looking back at some of their actions relating to Guantanamo Bay, compliments of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_bay): … the U.S. government argued unsuccessfully that people detained at Guantanamo were legally outside of the U.S. and did not have the Constitutional rights that they would have if they were held on U.S. territory (see Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995)). In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo have access to American courts … On November 8, 2004 U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them. Prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo have been labeled "illegal" or "unlawful enemy combatants", but a number of observers such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and Human Rights Watch maintain that the United States has not held the Article 5 tribunals specified by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law." Yessiree, sounds like everyone is certainly presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial in Bushland! And if you doubt the insincerity of the Bush/Cheney/Republican crew’s claims about the right to due process and a fair trial, consider this from a November 13, 2005 article in The Observer: Human rights campaigners are calling it the 'November surprise' - a last-minute amendment smuggled into a Pentagon finance bill in the US Senate last Thursday. Its effects are likely to be devastating: the permanent removal of almost all legal rights from 'war on terror' detainees at Guantanamo Bay and every other similar US facility on foreign or American soil. If the amendment passes the House of Representatives unmodified, one of its immediate effects is that Stafford Smith and all the other lawyers who act for Guantanamo prisoners will again be denied access, as they were for more than two years after Camp X-Ray opened in 2002. The amendment was tabled by Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican, and passed by 49 votes to 42. It reverses the Supreme Court's decision in June last year which affirmed the right of detainees to bring habeas corpus petitions in American federal courts. The article also has this to say about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay: None of them were given any kind of hearing when they were consigned to Guantanamo. Instead, the Americans unilaterally declared they were unlawful 'enemy combatants', mostly on the basis of assessments by junior military intelligence personnel, who were often reliant on interpreters whose skills internal Pentagon reports have criticised. (sic) Nice, huh? First they stand in front of the cameras and say “each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial,” and then we find out about how they’ve “smuggled … the permanent removal of almost all legal rights” from anyone they choose into a finance bill. Where I grew up we called that lying and being deceitful. Unfortunately it’s just another day at the office for Bush and company. Just for fun, why don’t we all throw our support behind the Bush administration’s legal efforts and lobby for “the permanent removal of almost all legal rights” from Scooter Libby? Let’s start by denying him the right to use the nickname “Scooter.” I mean come on, when you’re the chief of staff (ex-chief of staff now) to the vice president and a co-architect of the grand scheme of Middle Eastern oil conquest that led to the Iraq debacle, shouldn’t you have a better nickname than Scooter? How about something more appropriate like Lewis “Shock and Awe” Libby, Lewis “The Conquer” Libby, Lewis “American Imperialist” Libby, or Lewis “Global Dominator” Libby? It's Cartoon Time Again! Bless You Rosa Parks
– May We Finish What You Started For some Americans the discrimination they face today is just as real and as unjust as the discrimination Rosa Parks faced so many years ago. Today, like then, the discrimination arises from people who want to oppress others who are not like them, those who are different in some way. As in the past, ignorance and fear are the root causes of this intolerance. Back then it came from certain white Americans who didn’t want black Americans to have the same rights they had. Today some of the worst discrimination in America comes from some members of the heterosexual community who don’t want homosexuals to have the same rights they have. Whether it’s the right to sit where you choose on the bus, or the right to marry the person of your choice, unfortunately discrimination is still very much alive in America. In the case of same-sex marriage, certain groups are willing to abandon the principle of “equal protection under the law” and deny other groups the right to the same legal protections that they themselves receive when they marry. The thing that is incredibly ironic about this is that many of the groups who are so eager to give up the standard of equal legal protection are religious groups. What they don’t seem to realize is that the standard either applies to everyone, or it doesn’t. Things are either equal or they’re not. You can’t have “partly equal” or “equal for some groups but not for others.” If some religious groups want to throw out “equal protection” and say that it’s okay to discriminate against a particular group based on some characteristic of their choosing, such as sexual orientation, then they have to be willing to say that it’s also okay for other groups do the same thing and discriminate against them based on some characteristic of their choosing, such as religious beliefs. That is the irony, and the hypocrisy, of this sort of discrimination. I can guarantee that if someone were to discriminate against one of these religious groups that are so eager to eliminate equal protection for others, and deny that group rights because of their religious beliefs, they would condemn that discrimination as religious persecution. They would complain loudly about how unjust and un-American, and perhaps even how immoral, it was. And yet they do exactly the same thing to others and seem to believe that it is perfectly fine and fully justified. Yes, we have made good progress in some ways in eliminating discrimination in American, but it seems that for as long as there are differences between people, and for as long as ignorance and fear are prevalent, there will continue to be discrimination against one group by another. I hope that I live to see the day when we, as a country, finish the work that Rosa Parks started so long ago. The day when we make equal rights and equal protection under the law more than just an abstract legal concept, the day when we make it a reality for all Americans. October 2005October is Gone? Huh? With the approach of winter there are plenty of things to be done around the “estate” and I’ve got a few other irons in the fire, as they say, including working on a bunch of new song ideas (the muse has been especially generous of late), doing pre-production work for another long-distance recording project, and working on a movie idea that I’m co-developing with an associate. It hasn’t left me with a lot of time to write commentary, which is a real shame because so much has been going on recently. Rosa Park sI say “God Bless You” to Rosa Parks, a true American hero, role model, and inspiration to everyone who wonders if a single person can make a difference. Rosa, you have inspired me to stand up on my web server and shout (or type) the message of truth and justice to the world. Plame, Iraq, and
More For years we’ve known about the oil pipeline that the Bush administration wanted to build through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now we know about the administration’s meetings in mid-2001 (months before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center) with the Taliban and members of Pakistan’s ISI (Pakistan’s secret service) where the Taliban were told that if they didn’t allow the pipeline to be built through Afghanistan, bombs would fall on them before the snow, by mid-October at the latest. Bush made good on that threat, invading Afghanistan on October 7. We also know about how neocons in the Bush administration were disappointed that Saddam Hussein was left in power at the end of the 1991 Gulf War and have continuously pressed to remove him, by military means if necessary. We know about how they pushed for the US to use force to secure strategic natural resources, like Middle Eastern oil. We know that Dick Cheney and representatives from major oil companies (the “Cheney energy task force”) met in March of 2001 (six months before the 9/11 attacks) and reviewed maps of Iraq’s oil fields and a list of potential buyers of Iraqi oil. We know about how Donald Rumsfeld and other neocons created the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to generate intelligence to support their plan for invading Iraq, intelligence which turned out to be false. The list goes on, and on, and on. I have barely scratched the surface. The American people deserve to know the truth, and justice should be done. I hope it is. Supreme
Court Nomination This opinion by Alito shows that he views women to be inferior citizens, not equal to their husbands, who can be required to seek the permission of their spouse before doing certain things. That is a dangerous attitude, a threat to the civil rights of women, and it should concern every woman in America. Tom DeLay Arrest Warrant Issued How the Bush
Administration Helped Bring Disaster to New Orleans Unfortunately in the case of Bush’s FEMA appointments, it has also cost many Americans their lives. (Have you noticed how so many of Bush’s actions result in more dead Americans? How can any American support this? It makes me wonder just whose side they’re on.) First Bush appointed Joe Allbaugh as head of FEMA. Did Allbaugh have any relevant experience that qualified him for the job? No, of course not, but that doesn’t matter in the Bush administration. Allbaugh had no experience in disaster management but he was one of Bush’s buddies from Texas, so he got the job. When Allbaugh decided to leave FEMA in 2002 Bush put his deputy, Michael Brown, in charge of the agency. Surely Brown had relevant experience, right? Wrong. Like Allbaugh, Brown had no disaster management experience. Before working at FEMA Brown had been the head of the International Arabian Horse Association. Let’s see, putting on horse shows and managing national disasters, they’re basically the same, right? I guess in George Bush’s mind they are. For him it’s all a show. To illustrate just how absurd (and wrong) this practice is, imagine if Bush appointed airline pilots or surgeons. How would you feel getting on a plane piloted by someone who was there because they had raised over $200,000 for Bush, even though they had never flown a plane before? Would you feel safe? Would you get on the plane? And how would you feel “going under the knife” of a surgeon who got his position because he had helped Bush with his campaign, even though he had no medical experience and had never operated on anyone before? Would you agree to let that person operate on you? And what about the person who made those appointments, would you support them? Would you support a person who endangered your life by putting someone with no flying experience in the pilot’s seat of your airplane? Would you support a person who endangered your life by appointing someone with no medical or surgical experience to operate on you? Not if you’re sane you wouldn’t. And yet for some reason, some people continue to support Bush even though he does exactly this sort of thing with his political appointments. The neglect of the New Orleans levee system due to Bush’s budget cuts and the flooding that resulted also illustrates a second danger of the Bush administration - their continued disregard of the needs of average Americans, especially the poor, in favor of the rich and large corporations. Bush and the Republicans in Congress have repeatedly cut or eliminated programs that millions of Americans depend on for their health, safety, and survival while handing big business and the wealthy huge giveaways. They have also taken more and more power and authority away from the agencies and organizations that protect average Americans and given more and more power and authority to big business and their wealthy supporters. As a result many of the support systems and safety nets that millions of Americans rely on to save them when misfortune strikes have been eroded to the point where they are no longer effective. This has seriously compromised the safety of millions of Americans and left them dangerously vulnerable. The Bush administration’s neglect of the American public’s safety has been particularly evident in the case of New Orleans. Just two months before hurricane Katrina caused the city’s levees to fail Bush slashed a record $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans branch of the Army Corp of Engineers. (The Corp is responsible for maintaining the levees.) The New Orleans branch of the Corp has suffered a 44.2% reduction in their funding since Bush took office in 2001. As a result work on the city’s levees stopped for the first time in 37 years, major hurricane and flood protection projects did not go forward, and a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane was shelved. About the only way that Bush could have done more to endanger New Orleans would have been if he had gone there with a shovel to dig holes in the levees himself. The combination of these two Bush administration practices, the appointment of unqualified personnel to government positions as a reward for their political support and the continued redirection of resources away from critical support systems and toward wealthy Republican supporters and big business, has jeopardized the health, safety, and security of millions of Americans. This trend is not something that just recently developed, Bush has been doing these things since the very beginning of his presidency, it just took a large disaster like hurricane Katrina to make the consequences apparent to most Americans. I sincerely hope that my fellow Americans, especially those who have supported Bush or other Republican leaders, learn something from the New Orleans disaster. I hope they’re able to realize that this catastrophe didn’t have to be as bad as it was, the damage didn’t have to be so extensive and the loss of life so great. The money needed to maintain and improve the levees that protected New Orleans didn’t have to be cut from the federal budget so that tax cuts could be given to the wealthy, an unnecessary war could be funded, and giant corporations could make record profits. All it would have taken to save most (perhaps all) of New Orleans was a president and a ruling party that put the safety of the American people first, ahead of their own greed and desire for power. All it would have taken was a president and a ruling party that worked for the good of the American people instead of the good of special-interest lobbyists, big business, and their wealthy supporters. I hate to see bad things happen to my country and I hate to see my fellow citizens suffer, so please, people, when the next election comes around take the time to learn about the candidates before you vote. If you just blindly vote for the candidate from your chosen party every election then you’re not well-suited to a democracy. A democracy requires an educated and well-informed public that makes intelligent choices in order to succeed. If you don’t want to take the time to educate yourself about the issues and think about the effects of your choices, I suggest you move to a country where you don’t have to make that effort. There are plenty of places in the world where those choices are made for you, where you don’t have the burden of learning and thinking, and they’d be happy to have another person who blindly supports “the party.” But if you plan to stay in America and vote, take the time to research candidates’ backgrounds and learn what their priorities are, who they work for and who they neglect. Look at what they’ve done and the consequences of their actions. Don’t be fooled by their BS talking points and misleading campaign advertisements. Take the time to find out the truth. Look at what they do, not what they say, and think for yourself. Your life, as well as mine, may depend on it. Compromising FEMA, Endangering New Orleans September 2005 Tom DeLay Indicted for Criminal Conspiracy,
Steps Down as Majority Leader Stop the Presses:
Bush Says the R-Word – Responsibility George W. Bush (yes, THAT George W. Bush, the bonehead) actually stood at a podium, in public, with cameras rolling, and while commenting on the lame federal response to hurricane Katrina said “… to the extent that the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility.” That’s right, go ahead, read it again, pinch yourself, you’re not dreaming. George Bush actually said the R-word and took responsibility for one small part of his administration’s incompetence. I imagine that as the words “I take responsibility” left his lips somewhere in the universe galaxies collided, stars exploded and black holes collapsed, tearing the very fabric of space-time asunder. For a second I thought that perhaps we had somehow swapped places with a mirror-image universe where everything was the opposite of our universe, where George W. Bush was a man of integrity and character. I was wrong, however. He’s still an idiot. From the video it was clear that it wasn’t easy for Bush to make that statement, it looked like he really had to struggle to get the words out. It reminded me of his appearance on Earth Day earlier this year, where it looked like it actually caused him physical pain to say something good about protecting the environment. I’m sure Bush didn’t want to take responsibility for his administration’s failures in responding to hurricane Katrina, but with his approval ratings the lowest of his presidency I’m sure Karl Rove is desperate to try anything, even trying to make Bush appear to be a man of integrity who takes responsibility for his mistakes. At least Rove knew that he would have the element of surprise with that tactic, no one was expecting anything like that from Bush. I can just see Bush arguing with Rove about it, like a child whose mother has told him that he has to go apologize for something he’s done wrong. “You’ve got to say it George” Rove would insist. “But I don’t waaannnt to!” Bush would whine. “George, listen to me,” Rove would say. “No! No! NO NO NO!” Bush would yell while stomping his feet, “You can’t make me!” “George, I’ve already made you,” Rove would calmly reply, “Your political career would be nothing without me.” “But I don’t wanna say it!!” Bush would insist, “I wanna start another war! Give me another war! I’m a war president!” “Now George, what did I tell you about that?” Rove would ask, “You can’t start another war until the finish the ones you’ve already started.” “Whhhhaaaa!!!” I can just imagine Bush spending an hour or so whining, pouting, stomping his feet, pounding his fists, and holding his breath before he finally gave in to Rove and agreed to read what had been written for him like a good little president. I still can’t believe he said it. It’s not like he meant it or anything, but it’s still amazing that he managed to get the words out of his mouth. New Music - Bryan Lee Foster (aka The
Phoenix) A Note to George Bush About Hurricane
Katrina In a recent speech you repeated a statement that you have made several times before, saying “We will confront emerging threats before they fully materialize.” Well guess what George, global warming is a serious threat to America and the whole world, and it has just materialized all over Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. It has already caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage and claimed tens of thousands of lives, and it will only get worse. I ask you George, do you really mean what you say about “confronting threats before they fully materialize” or is that just more of your BS? Your words may lie but your actions will reveal the truth. You have an important choice to make George. Are you going to do the right thing and stand up for America and the American people? Are you going to address this threat that we face and do your best to protect us from it? Or are you going to continue selling us out and being a whore for the energy industry, performing obscene acts of greed and betrayal in exchange for their money? I’m sure you’ll take issue with my use of words like whore and obscene, George, but they are accurate. One definition of a whore is a person “who is regarded as willing to set aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives.” There’s no way that you can truthfully argue with that characterization George, it describes you to a tee. Your actions throughout your professional and political career have shown us that. Likewise, one definition of obscene is “disgusting and morally offensive, especially through an apparent total disregard for others' rights or natural justice.” They sure nailed you with that one. I’m surprised your picture isn’t in the dictionary next to it. You say that you’ve refused to sign the Kyoto treaty, take meaningful steps to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, or otherwise address global warming because it would hurt the US economy. Well George, can you look me in the eye, can you look the American people in the eye, and tell us truthfully that disasters like hurricane Katrina don’t hurt the US economy? That the economy is somehow better off with a major city destroyed and submerged? That all those hurricanes that hit Florida last year didn’t hurt the economy? That all of the more frequent, more deadly, and more destructive storms that are coming in the years ahead won’t hurt the economy? What you don’t seem to understand, George, is that one way or another we’re going to have to pay the price for global warming, we cannot avoid it and we cannot escape it. Tax cuts won’t make it go away, talking points won’t prevent it, and you can’t fight it over there so we won’t get warm here. We can pay now in the form of tougher environmental regulations that take a modest amount of money out of our pockets (and reward us with longer, healthier lives and lower medical expenses), or we (and our children and grandchildren) can pay a hell of a lot more later in the form of deadly heat waves, destructive storms, flooded cities, destroyed homes, devastated lives, and dead bodies. What’s it going to be, George? Which future do you want for America? Are you going to stand on the side of the American people and do what’s right, or sell us out again for campaign contributions from the energy industry? Are you going to “mean what you say” and address this threat, or once again be a liar? Are you going to promote a “culture of life” by protecting the environment that sustains all life, or promote a culture of suffering and death by continuing to take the side of polluters who poison that environment? Are you going to be a patriot and a leader and do what’s right for your country, or are you going to continue being an oil industry whore? I know it’s a tough choice for you, George, the people or the almighty dollar. You’ve got three more years of your term to show us what your choice is, and we’ll be watching. The Gloves Are
Off As of today, the gloves are off. I am calling a spade a spade, a traitor a traitor, and bullshit, well, I’m calling it exactly what it is, male bovine feces. I hope sensitive readers will excuse my language because at times I may utilize the full dynamic range of the English lexicon, and it’s likely to get colorful. The straw that broke this blogger’s back was watching the Hurricane Katrina disaster, watching the Bush administration’s reaction, and thinking about the things that Bush had done to make the disaster worse, like slashing funding for New Orleans hurricane and flooding protection and ignoring global warming. Over the past five years I have spent many months researching and studying Bush and the neocons he rode to Washington on. I have read many tens of thousands of pages documenting their actions and the effects they have had. I’m not talking about the deceptive and misleading “talking points” they repeat ad nauseam or any of the things they say from a podium when the TV cameras are on them, I’m talking about what they do when the cameras are off and reporters weren’t around taking notes. (And 99% of the time it’s the opposite of what they said from the podium.) All of those months of research have led me to this conclusion: George W. Bush and his cohorts are doing serious harm to America, and anyone who supports them is either willfully ignorant, in denial, a traitor, or all of the above. As a patriotic US citizen I believe it is my duty to do what I can to defend America against all threats, foreign and domestic, and today the Bush administration is one of the greatest domestic threats that America faces. If you disagree with that statement then you don’t know much about the Bush administration and you don’t understand how their policies have negatively affected almost every aspect of life as an American. George Bush is much like the captain of the Titanic. He believes things that aren’t true (“the ship is unsinkable”) and when people who are more intelligent and better informed than he is try to alert him to reality (impending disaster) he discredits them and refuses to believe them. His response is to blindly and unthinkingly repeat his mantra that we need to “stay the course” – right toward the iceberg. Well people, Captain Bush has sailed America into the iceberg and we’re taking on water fast, literally. In response, Bush and his administration are hurriedly arranging dinner parties, masquerade balls, and other activities in a desperate attempt to distract us from the seriousness of the problem. Any member of his crew that tries to reveal the truth and tell the passengers that the ship is sinking is promptly attacked and thrown overboard. In the end Bush and his friends will escape unscathed, made even wealthier by the ordeal, while we the passengers are abandoned and left to drown as the ship goes down, our bodies floating in the aftermath like those poor souls in New Orleans I have had enough. The time for being polite is long past. This is, literally, a matter of life and death. For the hundreds of thousands of poor women and children around the world who have died because Bush eliminated funding for the programs that provided critical medical care for them. For the poor elderly Americans who had their heat shut off and froze to death in their homes during the winter of 2003 because Bush refused to release the funds for the program that helped them pay their heating bills. For the 6,000-9,000 Americans who die every year because of Bush’s cutbacks in pollution protection. For the thousands of babies who are born with birth defects and neurological disorders each year because of the additional chemicals that Bush has allowed to be spewed into our environment. For the hundreds of thousands of people in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and other states whose lives have been devastated by storms made increasingly frequent and violent by the global warming that Bush ignorantly refuses to address. For the more than 35,000 Europeans who died in the killer heat wave of 2003 that was fueled by that same warming. For the more than 100,000 innocent civilians and thousands of soldiers who have been killed in Bush’s wars for oil in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars based on neocon delusions of grandeur, greed, lies, and deceit. And for the thousands more who will be killed or irreparably harmed if George Bush and his cadre of crooks are allowed to continue pursuing their heartless, self-serving agenda at the expense of America and the American people. I must speak out for those who can no longer speak for themselves because their lives have been ended and their voices silenced by Bush’s cruel and inhumane actions. Their deaths should not be forgotten, and they should not be in vain. And to those who think my opposition to the Bush administration is extreme, unpatriotic, or wrong, I must ask, what if it was discovered that Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization was taking actions that were causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to the US and killing thousands of Americans every year? Would you be outraged? Would you demand that we use all our resources to defend our country and stop them? Would you demand that they be brought to justice? So how do you respond to the fact that the Bush administration’s actions are causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to the US and killing thousands of Americans every year? Not just in Iraq but right here in America as a result of Bush’s environmental and domestic policies. Do you think that it’s fine because it’s our own government doing it to us instead of some other organization? That it’s fine because the perpetrators belong to the same political party as you do? Does that somehow make it OK? Does that make it any less of a crime? Does that make it any less of an assault on the American people? Does that mean that we shouldn’t take action, defend our country, and try to stop them? Does that mean that we shouldn’t demand they be brought to justice? No, it does not. It’s not OK, it’s still a crime, it’s still an assault on the American people, and we should do everything we can to defend our country, try to stop them, and demand they be brought to justice. I understand that it’s very easy to pretend everything will be fine, to change the channel, turn off the news, tune out, not pay attention, go on with your life and refuse to believe how bad it really is. I understand that we all want to believe that our government is good and they’re doing good in our names, that they have our best interests at heart. I understand how reassuring it is to believe soothing sound-bite talking points that make the frightening complexities of a dangerous world seem so simple and easily solved. I understand the comforting lure of the “ignorance is bliss” approach and I know how hard it is to admit that as a nation we have made a colossal mistake in electing George Bush president. It is a mistake that has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives, cost us (and our children and grandchildren) trillions of dollars, and cost America its reputation as a noble and just nation. It may be difficult and it may be uncomfortable, but the time has come for all of us to take a hard, honest look at the actions of the Bush administration, call them what they are, and hold them accountable. If America is to ever be respected again as a country that values truth, integrity, justice and knowledge over lies, deceit, ignorance and blind dogma, it must be done. Crimes are still crimes regardless of whether they’re committed by people with light skin or dark skin, Christians or Muslims, our own government or foreign insurgents. It doesn’t matter whether they’re paid for with our tax dollars or by terrorist supporters, either way the misdeeds are just as despicable and the victims are just as dead. It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Are you a good person? Are you doing something? Are you speaking out, writing letters to the editor, signing petitions, contacting your representatives, donating to organizations that oppose the Bush administration? At a time like this apathy and inaction are akin to treason. Yes, that is a strong statement, but it is not an exaggeration. To sit by and do nothing to stop the Bush/neocon agenda is to betray your country and your fellow citizens. The stakes are too high to continue denying the truth any longer. The time has come for each of us to decide where our loyalty lies. Are you for America and the American people, or against them? Will you do your part to stop the destructive Bush/neocon agenda, or will you be complicit in their crimes? Will you stand up for what is good, and right, and just, or will you allow treachery to prevail? Will you be a patriot who defends your country, or a traitor who allows it to be raped, pillaged and plundered by the highest bidder? I have made my choice. Have you made yours? Our Hearts Go Out to All Victims of Hurricane
Katrina August 2005 God
Bless Cindy Sheehan The Bible also says that the world is filled with good and evil. If you believe that, then which side do the peace makers fall on and which side do the war makers fall on? If the peace makers are blessed by God as the Bible says then they must be good, because God would not bless evil. That means that war makers are the opposite of good, or evil. So what does this say about Cindy Sheehan and George Bush? Which one is the peace maker and which one is the war maker? Which one is blessed and which one is damned? Which one is good and which one is evil? If you claim to believe the Bible and believe what is says, then there is only one rational conclusion that you can reach. It is an irrefutable fact that Cindy Sheehan is a peace maker and George Bush is a war maker. Bush made his position clear when he proclaimed “I’m a war president.” Therefore Cindy Sheehan is blessed and George Bush is damned. Cindy Sheehan is good and George Bush is evil. To some of you that’s probably a startling conclusion, but it’s very simple and straightforward. There’s no convoluted rhetoric, no doubletalk, and no misleading talking points. If you’re having trouble accepting it go back and read that passage from Matthew again. It doesn’t say “Blessed are the peace makers unless they stand along the road with signs,” or “Blessed are the peace makers unless they want to talk to the president,” or “Blessed are the peace makers unless they disagree with US foreign policy.” It says "Blessed are the peace makers, for they will be called sons of God” – period, end of sentence, full stop. No qualifiers, no conditions, no fine print, no exceptions. God Bless you, Cindy Sheehan. And as for George Bush, let’s just say I’m confident that he will pay for his crimes, if not in this world or this lifetime, in another one. Cow Manure Eyed as Alternate Fuel Source The article says researchers (what are they called, bullshitologists?) are experimenting to find the best mix of manure to yield the most useable energy and heat. I think there’s also an opportunity to maximize the energy output by modifying what the cows eat. I know a taqueria that makes a bean burrito that’ll give those cow pies a real kick, and a Texas five-alarm chili joint that’s sure to result in high-octane bovine droppings. The only potential problem, of course, is that the resulting cow flatulence would be a fire hazard (Please, no open flames around the longhorns!) but technology does exist to mitigate that danger. *Note: All calculations were performed using a little-known variation on Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (E=mc2) known as Einstein’s Conjecture of Bovine Relativity, E=cm2, where Energy = cow manure2. Did you know that if you were to send a cow into space and accelerate it to near the speed of light, time would pass much more slowly for it than for the cows back on Earth? And did you know that the farmer would be really pissed at you for sending his cow into space? Read the San Jose Mercury News article at http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/12445125.htm. The End Must Be Near Why
is George Afraid of Cindy? It’s a general pattern of spinelessness that I’m surprised the media hasn’t noticed and pointed out. OK, scratch that, the mainstream media seems thoroughly incapable of meaningful analysis or insight these days, so I guess the lack of exposure is par for the sordid course. But back to cowardly George. This is a topic that could easily be a full article (and if I get the time it may be) but in brief, if you look at Bush’s career what you see is an ongoing pattern of spinelessness and avoidance of any conflict that he would have to personally face. Look at his military “career.” He used family connections to get in the “champagne unit” where he’d be safe and sound with all the other little rich boys. He never had to face any real conflict, but he even skipped out on that, not showing up to complete his service. Look at all the hundreds of campaign appearances and “town hall” meetings Bush has held where the audience members were thoroughly screened and hand-selected to ensure that there wouldn’t be a single person in attendance who disagreed with him. God forbid poor Georgie should have to face someone who asked him a tough question, he doesn’t have the mettle for that. Look at how Bush “flip-flopped” his position on the Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories to suit whichever side had just pressed their case to him. The lines between Israel and Palestine have shifted over the years, and a point of contention has been whether Israel should withdraw to the armistice lines of 1949 or those of 1967. First, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with Bush and argued for the 1967 lines, and afterward Bush endorsed Sharon’s position, saying it was unrealistic to expect a return to the 1949 lines. Then Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas met with Bush and argued for the 1949 lines, and afterward Bush endorsed Abbas’ position, saying that any changes to the 1949 lines would have to be mutually agreed to by both sides. Thankfully we were spared the spectacle of revolving door visits by Sharon and Abbas, with Bush changing his position back and forth depending on who had spoken to him most recently. Bush apparently couldn’t muster the nerve to take a firm position and defend his decision to the opposing side. Look at the administration neocons and the Iraq war. It’s been well documented that the neoconservatives in the Bush administration have wanted to invade Iraq since the end of the first Gulf war, which they felt was “unfinished.” People like Paul Wolfowitz were especially vocal about it in published papers as far back as 1992. Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld became hawks of a feather on this issue, and when Bush-Cheney took power in 2000 Cheney brought a whole flock of neocons with him to the administration (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Perle, Libby, and many more). This motley crew pressured Bush to carry out their wishes to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and privatize Iraq’s oil industry (Cheney’s pet project), and of course Bush caved in and went along with it. It’s an amazing irony that the invasion of Iraq, which Bush’s supporters cite as a prime example of his toughness, is actually a prime example of his weakness, of his inability to stand up to the neocons in his administration and say no to their delusional visions of global conquest. Bush didn’t go along with the Iraq invasion because he’s tough, he went along with the Iraq invasion because he was afraid to face the neocons around him and tell them no. He’s not equipped to deal with that kind of personal, one-on-one confrontation. And look at the literally hundreds of times throughout Bush’s presidential career when he’s given in to pressure from lobbyists, big-money donors, and special interests, and given them whatever they’ve wanted. It’s like he (along with many members of the Republican “leadership”) are their paid servants, dutifully doing their master’s bidding, rewriting legislation and giving away more and more of America to big, wealthy interests so they can pillage and plunder it at will in the name of the almighty dollar. I’m convinced that’s why Bush’s handlers so carefully control who gains access to him. Only those who are willing to spend the most money to pay off the gatekeepers are allowed to enter the castle and have an audience with King George the Spineless, who promptly consents to their demands and grants their wishes. It doesn’t matter how badly their requests (which usually involve harming others in the name of making more money) hurt America or the American people, all it takes is a little pressure and Bush folds like a house of cards and gives them whatever they want. When Bush needs to act strong he can certainly put on a decent show. He’s fairly good at following Rove’s instructions and posturing properly at the podium, saying the right words to sound tough, putting on a costume and strutting around on an aircraft carrier, and generally giving the impression that he has some strength and conviction under his designer suit, but his actions reveal that it’s all an elaborately choreographed charade. The reality is that time and time again when Bush was faced with the prospect of personally facing conflict, looking someone in the eye and defending his position, he has wimped out. So George, I challenge you to overcome your fear of facing the opposition, find yourself a spine (borrow one from Cheney if you need to, he seems to have plenty), and go talk to Cindy Sheehan. Are you man enough to do that? Are you brave enough to do that? Or will you take the easy, cowardly way out and avoid her? What you do in this situation, George, will tell us far more about your true character than all of your well-rehearsed speeches. It’s been reported that as Bush’s motorcade drove past Cindy Sheehan on the way to a $2 million fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, she stood holding a sign which asked “Why do you make time for donors and not for me?” I can answer that question for you Cindy. It’s an answer that is both simple and sad. It’s because Bush’s donors are rich and powerful, and you’re not. It’s because they can give him lots of money while you can only give him your son, and Bush values their dollars far more than he values your son’s life. And it’s because Bush, an AWOL chickenhawk who started a war based on lies and sent your son and hundreds of thousands of other American sons and daughters half way around the world to face bullets and bombs in the sweltering Iraqi heat, doesn’t have the guts to face an angry mother on a back road in Texas. Send Bush an email and tell him to meet with Cindy at president@whitehouse.gov. Bill
O’Reilly Goes O’Crazy Bill’s
Brain to Robert Novak: Keep On Walking! Bush Appoints Bolton: It’s Payback Time Bush and the White House had been stalling the Bolton vote for weeks, refusing the Senate’s requests for documents from Bolton’s past that could reveal just how ill-suited he is for the job. This stonewalling was actually a smart strategy on the part of Bush and White House, as it allowed them to keep incriminating evidence about Bolton’s past secret, and it also allowed them to stall the vote on Bolton (which very well could have resulted in him being rejected) until the Congressional recess, thereby allowing Bush to appoint him during the recess. In the end Bolton’s skeletons stayed in his closet, Bush didn’t have to risk a politically damaging Senate rejection of Bolton, and Bush got his way. It was a win-win-lose situation for Bush, Bolton, and the American people. Why was Bush so determined to appoint Bolton? In the Bush administration it’s all about loyalty and payback. It doesn’t matter whether the person is competent, or if they’re qualified for the position, or if it’s bad for America. If they’ve been loyal to Bush and his agenda, Bush will pay them back, often with a cushy appointment. Bolton has been very loyal to Bush and his agenda, so Bush was determined to give him this appointment as his reward. It also fits in nicely with Bush’s general dislike of the United Nations. Let’s take a quick look at what Bolton has done to earn his reward: 2000 Election *AEI stands for American Enterprise Institute. As reported in Wikipedia, the AEI “has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's public policy; more than two dozen AEI alumni have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.” Avoiding Prosecution New American Century Office of Special Plans Yellow Cake Lies Distorting Intelligence It has been said that Bolton repeatedly “cherry picked” bits of intelligence that supported the neocons’ agenda while rejecting intelligence that didn’t. Greg Thielman, of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), was assigned as Bolton’s intelligence liaison and met with him daily to discuss the INR’s latest findings, at least for a while. Thielman describes why the meetings ended: "Bolton seemed troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear ... I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, 'The Undersecretary doesn't need you to attend this meeting anymore.'" Bolton was getting all of the “intelligence” he needed to support the Iraq invasion from the neocons’ Office of Special Plans, he didn’t need any real intelligence getting in the way. It has also been reported that Bolton withheld information that contradicted the administration’s WMD claims from Secretary of State Colin Powell on several occasions, and from his successor, Condoleezza Rice, at least once. Eliminating Opponents In the run up to the invasion, when the Bush administration was making accusations about Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons, Bustani was working to send chemical weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify the administration’s claims. Of course there were no chemical weapons, so the inspectors represented a threat to the administration’s planned invasion. They couldn’t allow their WMD claims to be exposed as lies, and so Bustani came to be viewed as one of the “foremost obstacles to war.” Bolton decided that Bustani had to go, so he flew to Europe to demand Bustani’s resignation, and orchestrated his removal at a special session of the OPCW. Bolton’s actions were later condemned by the United Nation’s highest administrative tribunal as an "unacceptable violation" of the principles that protect international civil servants. Abuse of Power After the Iraq invasion Bolton continued to target officials who questioned or criticized the Bush administration’s erroneous WMD intelligence. Both Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Hans Blix, head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, were targeted by Bolton after they criticized the invasion of Iraq as unjustified. Bolton reportedly got the CIA and the NSA to spy on both of them in an effort to |
